Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nedjer" data-source="post: 5643689" data-attributes="member: 83796">Maybe not if the system is designed to be tuned, i.e. if an option's being used to break the system the system is retuned for later sessions to recalibrate. If the expectation is that rules can be switched on or off to groups' preferences balance doesn't have to come down to a head-to-head where the player has to be broken to save the rules from begin broken.An example, in my fantasy game there's a snowball spell which if it hits an opponent, makes them a bit mad and choose a physical option as their next action. This is a total lifesaver in solo or small team games where a powerful spellcaster can build devastating spell chains.However, with larger parties there's a temptation to use snowballs to take out 'enemy artillery' by completely block opponents spell chains. The balance could be corrected by ditching the spell totally but players love it.Switching it on for solo and off for party would work. However, if the rules are played really flexibly the option of presenting a party with a group of opponents who knock out all their spell chains quickly encourages parties to watch that their tactics don't become common knowledge through overuse . . .</blockquote>